Did you know that Darwin’s children doodled on his “Origin” manuscript? You can see their sketches here.

Creationists tend to raise the same objections to evolution over and over again. Here are Phil Plait’s responses to a number of them (h/t to Washington Post for the last two links ).

If I’m being completely honest, I found “On the Origin of Species” to be a rather boring book. World-changing, but not a thrilling read. “The Voyage of the Beagle”, on the other hand, is fantastic and I highly recommend it! You can download the full book for free here.

What does it mean to be human? Understanding the history of our species helps us answer this question. If you’re a little rusty on your human paleontology, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has an excellent, easy to read guide for you.

Help improve science education in your community by visiting the National Center for Science Education’s webpage. They keep track of legislation that threatens science education in public schools, and have resources for community members who want to help.

Finally check out this page to find an event in your town celebrating Darwin today! I’m planning on toasting the great man tonight with a nice bottle of champagne (sent to me by one of my mentors as a congratulatory gift for becoming a professor. It seems fitting!).

Have you got any evolution-related links you’d like to share? Please post them in the comments!

]]>http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/02/12/darwin-day/feed/8batgirlraffThink hard. Go deep. Please don’t politicize vaccine refusalhttp://violentmetaphors.com/2015/02/04/please-dont-politicize-vaccine-refusal/
http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/02/04/please-dont-politicize-vaccine-refusal/#commentsWed, 04 Feb 2015 06:42:00 +0000http://violentmetaphors.com/?p=1646Continue reading →]]>Given recent measles outbreaks and the ravenous news cycle, it was inevitable that public attention would shift to politicians’ position on vaccination. Some commenters are reacting by politicizing the vaccine debate, painting conservatives or the tea party (or, in response to those messages, liberals) as anti-vaccine. Please don’t let this message take hold. It’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and it’s counterproductive.

The president set off a small chain reaction by advising parents to vaccinate, but Governor Chris Christie’s comments have drawn the most attention. His statement was almost meaningless; he told reporters that (of course) he vaccinated his own children, and “that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” Vaccination is not strictly mandatory in any state, and most states permit exemptions for the few parents who have ideological objections to modern medicine, so as a matter of simple fact the government has already decided and given parents that choice. (He went on with a few more comments, but other than to say that obviously we disagree with them, there’s not much point in dissecting them here.)

Christie is a politician who wants to avoid unnecessary controversy. After the first negative reports of his comments emerged, he distanced himself from anti-vaxers by firmly stating, “there is no question kids should be vaccinated.” But it was too late. The public picked up on his initial remarks and fed him straight into the gnashing teeth of the news cycle. And once the meal started, other prominent politicians with an eye on 2016 staked out seats at the table. Rand Paul seemed to give credence to some anti-vax myths, although he, too, backed down a bit and clarified that vaccines are “a good thing.” His fellow conservative (and fellow physician) Ben Carson pushed back on those statements, backing vaccination and even comparing anti-vaxers to secondhand smokers. Hillary Clinton, the three conservatives’ bête noir, came out with her own strong, respectable and simple message: “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids.”

Notice something about these statements? Even the most ant-vax statement isn’t all that opposed to vaccination, compared to what you read online. That’s no surprise. The overwhelming majority of parents vaccinate their kids, and politicians who offend overwhelming majorities retire early. But you’re going to read a lot of headlines and tweets about how Rand Paul and Chris Christie are anti-vaxers because they’re pandering to the voters; you may even see people promoting the meme that Republicans (or conservatives or Tea Partiers) are anti-vax now. Don’t buy it.

First, it’s not true. The majority of Americans, the majority of voters, the majority of conservatives, and the majority of liberals reject the anti-vaccine movement and its scary urban legends. Specific examples like Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton are easy to find. But we know a lot about how people see vaccines generally. Researchers have concluded that “political outlooks” don’t make a real difference in whether people see vaccines as safe and effective. It’s not just whether you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat, either; whether or not you believe in global warming (or evolution) also doesn’t make much of a difference when it comes to understanding that vaccines are safe and effective. The fact is that people overwhelmingly support vaccination, no matter what their politics, income, or education. And that’s no surprise. You can’t beat the hell out of polio, smallpox, diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, and tetanus without making friends.

But there’s another reason not to believe or spread the idea that any one political party or persuasion is anti-vaccine. It’s a dangerous notion that creates an ideological split where there wasn’t one before. Ironically I was writing about this just around the time Christie was making his comments. As I said then, and as Chris Mooney has since explained, the problem is recruitment. Right now, most people support vaccination and reject anti-vaccine talking points. (I know that can seem implausible, given how visible those hoary anti-science stories are online. But vaccination rates don’t lie—the vast majority of parents reject anti-vax scaremongering.) If we start drawing party lines on top of the vaccine debate, people will start to use their party affiliation to define their position on vaccines. They won’t realize they’re doing it. They’ll honestly think they’re making decisions about vaccines based on the facts. But they’ll be judging those facts based on the community they belong to, the way we all do. So we can’t let those communities be defined as anti-vax communities!

There’s some interesting research on this question. This is a little oversimplified, but basically researchers tested people to determine how concerned they were about risks from things like nuclear power, gun ownership, global warming, and vaccines. They could see how people clumped together or spread apart. Just like you’d expect, climate change and gun possession were divisive, with some people seeing them as very risky and others not so concerned. Vaccines weren’t like that—across the board, people were relatively unconcerned about the risk of vaccination.

Until the researchers showed people a fake editorial politicizing the vaccine debate. The article complained about “Michele Bachmann’s famously idiotic claim, made in a Republican Party presidential debate,” and compared comparing vaccine deniers to climate change deniers and creationists (much more politically-aligned debates). People who were exposed to this article became polarized. Those who were slightly more “anti-vaccine” lost confidence in vaccination and started to overestimate the risk of vaccines compared to the control group. Remember that the variable here is exposure to an article criticizing anti-vaxers. The result was to make more anti-vaxers.

The vaccine debate is mostly about parents who are considering the issue for the first time, and/or aren’t completely persuaded one way or the other. (The large majority of people who are sold on vaccines don’t need the debate; the small number of committed anti-vaxers aren’t likely to be persuaded.) Those people will pick sides if you give them enough reason to. Attacking them for being hesitant will do it, but so will attacking people they respect and admire. Also, defining a politician or party as “anti-vax” just signals to people who identify with that person or group that it’s OK to be anti-vax. So for someone who hasn’t been exposed to the debate, letting it get politicized will both make it easier to pick sides and encourage them to do so. We want them deciding based on sound medical advice, not political affiliation—so don’t politicize the debate.

Obviously this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t criticize politicians for taking an uninformed or harmful position. Please, by all means, criticize away. And use positive pressure too. Thank your representatives for taking a good position, whether you voted for them or not. If you’re in Kentucky, send Rand Paul an email or tweet thanking him for acknowledging the good that vaccines do; just don’t forget to also educate him on the truth about anti-vaccine talking points. The carrot and the stick are both important, and they should be coming from both sides of the aisle. Let politicians know that their constituents and their constituents’ friends care about good medical policy.

But don’t let this discussion get bogged down in party or identity politics. It’s inaccurate and counterproductive.

UPDATE: Looks like Natural News intercepted the “DoNotLink” link and redirected to an old article bragging about their supposed scientific prowess. I’ve replaced it with a direct link to the article.

Mike Adams, who calls himself the “Health Ranger,” has an ugly reputation for incompetence when it comes to scientific questions. That shouldn’t be a surprise. He’s a relentless self-promoter and a talented salesman who has discovered that wearing a lab coat and using four-dollar words moves product. He hawks supplements, housewares, CDs and DVDs, tinctures, powders, lotions and potions that will cure what ails you! People are more likely to buy his wares if they don’t trust their doctor, and if they’re full of fear for their own health. So it’s probably no coincidence that Adams’s Natural News site also pushes frightful misinformation about how awful, terrible, and corrupt those scheming doctors and scientists are.

It’s a very savvy marketing strategy, because people who feel like mainstream doctors and scientists are out to get them will probably identify more strongly with Adams’s Natural News community as a way to feel like they’re fighting back. That would make them more likely to trust him, and more likely to fork over $40 for ten ounces of freeze-dried apples (a little over $25 on Amazon).

If Adams is a world-class salesman, he’s strictly an amateur when it comes to science and, it appears, the law. A few days ago Adams posted an article screaming, “MMR measles vaccine clinical trial results FAKED by Big Pharma – shocking U.S. court documents reveal all”. Meh. The article is beyond misleading. Anyone reading just that, and not digging further, would walk away with a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on in the case. It could be just rank incompetence, but nothing about the article give me the impression that Adams gives a damn whether the contents are true or not, as long as the audience gets good and angry at those evil government scientists and corporate doctors. (And if his description of the case gets you angry enough, you can fight back! Just click on the “Store” button conveniently located right above the article and buy yourself an herbal medicine kit, or some essential oils, or an immunity-boosting candle, or all-natural salt, or even a $100 pack of iodine. Just the sort of thing they don’t want you to buy!)

Rather than explain the case in detail, I’ll just link to an excellent explanation written by an actual law professor. Long story short, two ex-employees of Merck (a pharmaceutical company that makes a mumps vaccine) filed a special kind of lawsuit called a qui tam action. A qui tam suit is basically when you sue someone on the theory that they defrauded the government, not you personally. The government can take over the case for you if it wants. If it doesn’t, like in this case, the people filing the lawsuit have to fight it out for themselves, but if they win they get a bigger cut of the damages. In other words, you can get stupid rich with the right qui tam action. (Which is not a criticism. People who save the government from serious fraud deserve to get a cut of the damages for bringing, fighting, and winning the case.)

We don’t have any idea yet whether the plaintiffs in this case, who are called “relators” in a qui tam action, can prove their claims or not. They mostly won a legal fight last fall, so the case is still going forward, but we aren’t even close to knowing whether the evidence supports those claims. Discovery, the part of the case where the facts really come out, has barely started and won’t finish until at least March 2016. All of that just means that it’s ridiculously premature to read too much into the complaint. All that’s happened here is that someone alleged Merck faked some test results to sell more vaccine; nothing has been proven.

Nevertheless, it looks like Natural News wants you good and pissed-off about the evil pharma company. (Really want to stick it to big pharma? Just buy the $650 “Emergency Medicine” kit of herbal remedies! That’ll show Merck.) To get there, they take some rather extreme liberties with the facts.

Strike One: The relators’ claims are all written out in their complaint, which is basically the document that starts the case. Natural News says it “acquired that document years ago and maintains one of the very few copies in existence, as all ‘official’ sources have tried to remove this document from human memory and bury the case.” This is pure, weapons-grade bolognium. Do you know what you have to do to get a copy of this super-secret document? Go to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and say the secret words: “Can I have a copy of the complaint in this case?”

Let’s say you don’t want to go to Pennsylvania. Fair enough, even though it’s quite nice. You can also just go to the court’s website and download it. To be fair, the website is a little confusing. It might take you one or two or even ten minutes to figure out. You’d probably have to register for an account too, which can take even longer. But do you know what you don’t have to do? Go to Natural News for one of the “very few copies in existence.” This document that “all ‘official’ sources have tried to remove” is publicly available online and in the courthouse. And I checked, the one online is the same one that Natural News is hawking as proof of their secret-agent chops.

Natural News is probably all worked up because the complaint was originally filed under seal, meaning that the public couldn’t access it. That would be an understandable thing for a layperson to get worked up about, except it would take you literally thirty seconds on Google to find out that the False Claims Act requires all complaints to be filed under seal. Whoops. And while two paragraphs are still “redacted” (cut out of the public document, and still under seal) that’s because the relators asked them to be sealed even before they sent the complaint to Merck. They told the court that those two paragraphs contained “privileged” information, probably meaning they disclose something they heard from Merck’s lawyers when they still worked there, so as a courtesy they wanted to keep those paragraphs sealed rather than publish them right away. No one forced them to do it and it’s not part of any cover-up.

Strike Two: Natural News also howls, “US government chose to ignore the 2010 False Claims Act!” No, “Health Ranger.” They didn’t. The False Claims Act is the law under which the relators sued. I don’t know why he calls it the “2010” False Claims Act, because it dates back to the Civil War. It requires the government to choose whether or not to intervene, which it usually doesn’t. Remember, when the government doesn’t intervene the relators have to prosecute the case on their own dime, and the government still gets most of the damages awarded. You’d expect the government to take that deal most of the time, and in fact Wikipedia says it does in over 75% of FCA cases. I don’t know for sure that that’s an accurate number, but it sounds about right to me. In this case, other news reports clarify that the DOJ conducted a two-year investigation before deciding not to intervene in this case.

Strike Three: Natural News also wants its readers to believe that the government “simply ignored [the case], thereby protecting Merck’s market monopoly instead of properly serving justice.” This is just inane, and shouldn’t make sense to any readers who were thinking critically about the case. It says something about Natural News’s opinion of its own readers that it would publish this theory, and it says something about those readers that they swallowed it whole. If the government wanted to take a dive on the case, it would have intervened and then shut everything down. Letting the relators handle the case is the last thing the government would want to do if it was in cahoots with Merck. And in fact, far from ignoring the case, the government stepped in to a limited extent to support the relators by arguing on their side on a technical legal question.

Natural News strikes out! This article is a frothy stew of paranoia and misinformation. Conveniently, anyone who gets worked up about the terrible! government! conspiracy! it describes can just click on the “Store” link above the article and buy some survival rations to make themselves feel in control again. I wonder if scientists and doctors feel like this, reading Natural News pieces? If the level of care, accuracy, and knowledge that went into the legal parts of this report are anything like the health and science news they publish, it’s no wonder actual experts treat Mike Adams like a joke.

A very expensive joke.

Tagged: anti-vaccine, anti-vax, federal courts, law, legal, Merck, Mike Adams, Natural News, pseudoscience, quack, qui tam, vaccines]]>http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/02/01/mike-adams-of-natural-news-as-fine-a-lawyer-as-he-is-a-scientist2/feed/67752980066_a73cbbb6aa_kkmcroberScale_of_justiceDear parents, let’s talk about measleshttp://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/31/dear-parents-lets-talk-about-measles/
http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/31/dear-parents-lets-talk-about-measles/#commentsSat, 31 Jan 2015 21:48:36 +0000http://violentmetaphors.com/?p=1589Continue reading →]]>Thanks to vaccines, L. is protecting other kids in her community. And by avoiding illnesses, she has more time for important stuff, like being a superhero. Photo by Colin McRoberts

Dear parents,

This is Livia. An unvaccinated child with measles potentially exposed her the disease, so she spent one of her first six months in quarantine. Photo courtesy of Jennifer Simon

You’re probably aware that measles has been in the news a lot lately. We need to talk about it again, even if you feel like it’s old news, because of Livia, Rhett, and Cami.

Unlike Ebola, measles is very easy to catch. It can infect a child if he or she breathes in a room where a sick person coughed or sneezed within the last two hours. And because people are contagious four days before they have any sign of a rash, it’s often spread by people who have no idea that they (or their kids) are infected. 90% of unvaccinated children will become infected if they’re exposed to someone with measles. (You can find more information here).

This means that the disease can spread rapidly once it has a foothold in the population. Last year, for example, an outbreak among an Amish community infected 383 people. This year, most of the infections so far are linked to exposure at Disneyland, and there is concern that the number of outbreaks may continue to rise.

And measles is a very serious disease. 30% of people infected—particularly children under the age of 5 and adults over the age of 20—will develop complications. One or two children out of every 1,000 who contract measles will die from it, and about the same number will develop encephalitis that can cause seizures or mental retardation (See the CDC’s list of complications here). It’s very telling that older people, who have lived in a time before modern vaccines were developed, who remember what it was like to have outbreaks of diseases like measles and polio, overwhelmingly support vaccination.

(Some people, arguing from ideology rather than an understanding of the facts, will tell you that measles is no big deal to claim their fifteen minutes of fame. They can’t acknowledge how harmful measles can be without also acknowledging how dangerous their advice is. That gives them a very heavy bias to believe that measles is just one of those things kids have to suffer through to grow up. The facts are clear, and measles can kill.)

Doctor A.M. knows how important it is for babies and puppies to be protected from dangerous pathogens. Photo by Colin McRoberts

But you know this, and you’re trying to do the right thing. You feed your children healthy food, encourage them to exercise, and like the huge majority of parents in America today, you get your children vaccinated as part of their healthy lifestyles.

Unfortunately, some people are choosing not to vaccinate their children. As a consequence there are little pockets of unvaccinated children throughout the country.

You know this is a problem, because they could potentially infect children too young to receive vaccines.

If you’re angry about this, you’re justified in feeling that way. Goodness knows that there are enough dangers in the world that you can’t protect your child from. Measles (and mumps, rubella, HPV, influenza, pertussis, chickenpox, tetanus, hepatitis a and b) is something we can protect our children from. And it may make you angry that some parents refuse to do what they should to prevent them in their children, thereby putting the population at risk.

But however much it might make you feel better to post angry comments online about this, it’s counterproductive. That’s the most frustrating thing of all—no amount of scientific information will convince them otherwise, and people who are sitting on the fence with this debate may join up with the anti-vaxxers if they identify with them.

Parents don’t vaccinate their children for many different reasons. For some, it’s lack of access to good healthcare, and healthcare information. For others, it’s a part of a lifestyle. A few parents won’t change their minds no matter what. They have been lied to, and they’ve bought into those lies. They’ve even found a few unscrupulous doctors happy to profit by bolstering their opinions. These parents won’t change their minds, because that would mean that they’ve been wrong about their understanding of how the world works, and that they’ve actually been harming their children through their beliefs when they meant to protect them. If you put yourself in their shoes, I’m sure you can understand how difficult changing your mind under these circumstances would be. However wrong they are, it’s counterproductive to keep arguing with them or call them stupid—because they aren’t!—and it’s a waste of your time.

But most of the anti-vaccine rhetoric is coming from only a tiny group of people. They don’t speak for you. Most parents vaccinate on-time, just like you do and just like pediatricians do. It’s very important that you make your decision to do so public and visible, and your reasons for doing so clear. In that way, you may reach parents who are sitting on the fence; they have some concerns about vaccines, but they’re not totally committed to the anti-vaccine movement.

Understand that you do have the power to change these parents’ minds if you talk to them with patience and understanding. Let them know that you vaccinate yourselves and your children not only to protect your family, but to protect other families. Listen to their fears without shouting at them. Let them know that you understand their fears, but share with them the huge amount of scientific research–done by physicians and scientists who are also parents– that has tested vaccine safety and has shown you that vaccines are safe and effective.

A healthy, happy, fully-vaccinated aunt and niece and nephew. Photo by Colin McRoberts

Tagged: communication, conversation, cultural cognition, infectious diseases, measles, science, vaccines]]>http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/31/dear-parents-lets-talk-about-measles/feed/15batgirlraffVaccine superheroLivia, with permission of her motherA.M., who is not actually a doctor yet, used by permission of her parents.The Good Fight Part 1: The Fine Art of Talking to People Who Are Wronghttp://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/29/are-you-arguing-with-yourself/
http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/29/are-you-arguing-with-yourself/#commentsThu, 29 Jan 2015 18:10:25 +0000http://violentmetaphors.com/?p=1555Continue reading →]]>The good fight is that special argument where you know you’re right, and just can’t imagine how anyone could possibly disagree. But they do, even when the disagreement is about something fundamental and irreconcilable. Did we evolve? Is the climate changing? Are vaccines safe? Do I really have to pay my taxes? The answers matter, but so do the arguments. Let’s try to improve them.

This is Part I in a series about how and why we have those difficult conversations, online and in the real world. We’ll explore ways to make them more persuasive, more fun, and more rewarding. For a practical example of where we’re going with this, see my earlier piece, The Most Important Playground Conversation: How to Persuade a Friend to Vaccinate. Going forward we’ll focus particularly on arguments with people who have irrational ideas, like anti-vaxers or creationists, but some topics apply in every conversation. This is one of them, because in every conversation you have to remember: you are talking to a person.They are as real, as smart, and as decent as you are. You’re having a conversation, not a battle. That’s the hardest thing to remember for all of us some of the time, and for some of us all of the time.

I was going to start this series by writing about goals and strategies, but then I got bogged down in a conversation on global warming that reminded me of that more fundamental rule. It doesn’t matter what your goal is if you let yourself forget that you’re talking to a real person. Personalizing an argument, making it about the people instead of the issues, poisons conversations. Once you start to think of the conversation as just another blunt object to apply to the other person’s head, you’ve already lost. So what happened, and what can we do about it?

Not a friendly conversation.

A case study in conversation

Normally I don’t have much to say about climate change, because I don’t know anything about it. (Nevertheless I think it’s a real problem; here’s why.) This conversation interested me because it was a sidebar on a creationist blog, Uncommon Descent, which is virtually a laboratory for conversations with irrational people. One of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement started the blog years ago, but he long since turned it over to a lawyer named Barry Arrington. It’s still mostly about how evil and dumb and awful Darwin and his terrible theory are, but these days its various authors also weigh in on how scientists are dumb, gay marriage is unnatural, feminists and atheists are unethical, liberal judges are ruining America, and of course, climate change is a fascist lie.

Arrington, the host, sets the tone for the site with aggressive, mocking posts that insult and belittle people who disagree with his beliefs—conversations that are brittle as they are hostile, as he is known for banning commenters whose questions, good manners, or greater expertise reflect poorly on his own contributions. The result is sometimes hanging questions or one-sided dialogues, as no one realizes that the other side of the conversation has been silently silenced. This particular conversation was par for the course; long before it was over, the host banned me and some other commenters then retreated, apparently to wait for criticism to die down. If you page through the comments, you’ll see that they start with better-educated readers correcting his misuse of a scientific term. Almost immediately, he loses his cool and calls them turkeys, credulous, idiots, fascists, hypocrites, and liars. (Well, the last two were directed just at me. I’m not a liar, but am I a hypocrite? Keep reading.)

Why stick it out through an abusive conversation? I have a high tolerance for that sort of thing. I’ve been yelled at and even physically threatened by many more obnoxious people, and had long, friendly discussions with many others who had more irrational beliefs than Mr. Arrington’s. But more importantly, I’m interested in how and why people communicate and argue about irrational ideas. Much too often those conversations wind up looking like Uncommon Descent: drawing lines between us and them and then using the pretext of a conversation to beat them about the head and shoulders. That’s especially common when the argument is about the kind of science that most people feel they can understand pretty well, like evolution or vaccines. Both sides are inclined feel like the other just isn’t smart enough or honest enough to come to grips with the facts. And the result is a low-quality, hostile discussion that reads more like a high-school debate than an educated conversation. Finally, I honestly enjoyed pushing the host’s buttons. We can all do better.

bark bark liar bark hypocrite bark idiot!

Remember who you’re talking to.

My day job is in the field of communication and negotiation. I often work with clients who are having trouble with bitter, difficult negotiations. Almost every time I ask them, “Do you trust the other side? If I asked them that question, what would they say?” Every time, they say “not always.” When a conversation is divided into sides, like with a debate or negotiation, trust immediately starts to go out the window. That’s not always necessarily a problem, because negotiators need to be a little skeptical. Be trustworthy, but not necessarily trusting.

Even so, I tell my clients to make a crucial assumption: try to believe that the person you’re talking to is just as smart and just as honest as you are. It may not be true. You may feel like you know for a fact that it’s not true. But try to believe it. No, this doesn’t mean that you automatically believe everything that the other person says. Trust, but verify. Or don’t trust at all, if you know you can’t. But even then, even if you know you can’t believe what the other side has to say, it’s almost always asking for trouble to walk into any conversation believing that the other side is dumber, sleazier, crookeder or nastier than you are.

The problem is that by the time a conversation gets heated, or even if you’re just expecting it, you’ve lost your objectivity as a judge of character. It’s too tempting to believe that the only reason anyone could believe something so stupid is that they’re stupid. Or worse, maybe they don’t believe it at all. Maybe they’re only pretending to believe for some nefarious reason. Maybe, maybe those things are true—but it doesn’t really make a difference. After all, do you expect them to drop their argument and agree that you’re right just because you accused them of being a dummy or a hypocrite? This is especially a problem in arguments about science and other matters of fact, because many of us (ironically, usually those of us who aren’t scientists) start to think that we’ve been proven right, thus making the other guys a pack of mouth-breathing cretins.

The high ground is a narrow ledge.

Once people on either side get bogged like that, it’s not the same conversation anymore. Letting yourself assume the other side only disagrees because they’re stupid or dishonest personalizes the discussion. Once you’re in that mindset, it’s tempting to treat the conversation like a contest. You want to show the world how awful the other side of the conversation is, and you start to think of the conversation as a tool for doing that. You can see that happen in the Uncommon Descent thread, where people who want to have a conversation run up against someone who wants to win a conversation. One side keeps asking, “But why don’t you respond to these arguments? What’s wrong about this, and how do you think that works?” The other side arms itself with a few useful talking points it can fire like bullets, without regard for context or substance. When the clip is empty, they declare absolute victory—after all, didn’t you hear all those gunshots? We smoked ‘em!

Which side is which? It doesn’t particularly matter. The end result of that mindset is that neither side listens to the other. You won’t listen to someone who’s so obviously stupid or dishonest, and they won’t listen to someone who’s attacking them. (Often both sides will feel like they’re under attack.) If no one is listening, then what’s the conversation really about? Any opportunity to persuade the other side goes out the window. And worse, you might entrench the other side in their beliefs and encourage others to join them.

Don’t turn your argument into a recruiting poster.

People love to fight, and we love to pick sides. When it comes to arguments about science, it would be nice if people picked their sides based on evidence or data. But we know that’s not what happens in the real world. The research shows that when it comes to questions like evolution and climate change, “religiosity and right-left political outlooks” are much better predictors of a person’s opinion than how well they understand the science. In other words, for those of us who aren’t bona fide experts on a subject, we can’t escape the fact that our social groups have a heavy influence on our opinions, even if we’re convinced we make our decisions based just on the facts.

That’s important in a conversation or debate, because you have to remember there are almost always onlookers. Someone is listening to or reading your conversation, whether it’s lurkers on the forum or someone literally sitting at the same table. And when they see someone being pressured or attacked, they want to take sides and join in. Consider the Uncommon Descent thread we’ve been talking about, or its follow-up, or one of any number of ill-informed and misleading anti-vaccine rants. The authors of these pieces didn’t sit down and carefully reason out a position—they reacted to another position they don’t like, such as that climate change is real or that measles can harm children.

That reactive instinct is strong, and one of the most powerful drivers in getting people involved in public debates. There’s nothing really wrong with it; we want people to get motivated by important issues and get involved in the discussion. But if your contribution is primarily to demonize the other side, you’re only recruiting for them without actually moving the ball yourself.

Bantams are fighting cocks.

You can see this happen in comment threads and forums. Once someone starts an ugly conversation, others feel compelled to jump in and push back. If no one is willing to be the bigger person and return the conversation to a civilized footing, it’s a race to the bottom. That’s been the death of many otherwise interesting conversations.

It’s so easy to come up with a justification, and it’s going to feel like a good one–especially if you really want an excuse to open fire. This person really is that stupid, or I know for a fact this guy’s just pretending to believe this crap in order to start something, or What they believe is just too awful/dangerous/absurd/bigoted/immoral to take at face value. And that might be true–it would be a lot to ask of someone to have a straightforward, good-faith heart-to-heart chat with an actual Nazi. But how common are actual Nazis, compared to people who just get called Nazis to make them look bad?

Even if you really, truly feel you’re justified in treating the other side of the conversation like a moron, monster, or madman, remember that it’s not about you. A conversation has at least two parties, and no one is ever persuaded by being called an idiot. Nor are the people on your side of the table likely to be all that impressed. Thinking of the other person as a degenerate or idiot leads to your treating them that way, which will sink your chances of actually persuading them. (Persuading them doesn’t necessarily mean converting them to your opinion; you might also be interested in making them less certain of their own beliefs.) You might gratify the people on your side of the table, which might feel good, but it doesn’t actually accomplish very much. It’s a lot easier to feel like you won an argument than to actually change opinions.

Some people disagree, and treat the conversation just as way to amuse themselves, or make themselves feel good about supporting a cause they care about, or energize their side of the table like a cheerleader. If your goal is just to shine a light on yourself, without any regard for the other side, then it doesn’t seem as important to be charitable and assume they’re arguing in good faith. But even then, it pays to remember that you’re talking to decent, intelligent people–no one wins or feels good about a conversation with an idiot or a liar.

In it to win it.

Lots of people get into debates, especially online, to win them. Or show off how smart they are, or how clever and cutting they can be. I know I’ve done it, and it’s a fair bet you have too. Even then, it pays to remember that you’re talking to a human being—and to assume they’re as smart and as decent as you are. Even, especially, if you don’t want to believe that.

If all you want to do with a conversation is use it as a weapon, you’re not going to get very far by demonizing the other side. First, it’s not credible. People who already agree with you don’t need to see you denounce your opponent and won’t care all that much about it. The other side of the conversation certainly won’t be taking you seriously. And onlookers, the last people you might actually stand to influence, tend not to be all that impressed by hyper-aggressive rhetoric. A few may get energized and jump on board with you, but it’s just as likely they’ll sympathize with the people you’re attacking. Treating the other side like liars or fools pushes the people on the fence to choose sides, and you can’t control which side they pick.

And then, of course, there’s the fact that no one looks good throwing a temper tantrum. If you walk away from a conversation feeling proud that you called someone an “idiot,” you need better conversational skills. Far better to have the conversation and show that you’ve got something to say, rather than drenching your keyboard in spittle and frustration.

Staying positive.

None of this means that it’s wrong to argue, or even that it’s wrong to argue with a sharp tongue. In fact, there are good reasons for being a little aggressive now and then. For one thing, people tend to argue about the things they care about, like truth, science, religion, health, food, and sports. There’s nothing wrong with honest passion. It can even help an argument, as a sign of credibility and honest commitment to a position. And it’s silly to pretend we could exile passion from our conversations even if we wanted to.

Passion can move minds, too. Actually changing someone’s opinion on a controversial topic with a clever argument is depressingly rare. Someone who’s committed themselves to a position, especially if they’ve done it publicly, is not going to reverse themselves on the spot just because you dragged up some piece of data that supports your contrary position. Instead, people change their minds (usually) slowly; we don’t always realize we’re doing it, but our beliefs shift over time. And they often wind up in sync with our community: the people we know, respect, and want to be like. Passion is an important part of that process. It’s easier to listen to someone who’s passionate about their position, easier to believe them, and easier to want to be like them, than someone who just dryly drones on about the facts. Passion is charisma, and charisma persuades.

Nor is it always wrong to call someone a liar. If you’ve caught them in a dishonest statement, go ahead and call them out on it. But be sure that you’re right, be sure that you’re thinking as objectively as possible, and remember that you’re taking the conversation in an aggressive direction that’s not likely to result in any serious agreements. That’s a move that’s far more likely to derail a conversation than begin one. The same thing is true of using words that may be objectively true, but also carry the weight of an insult, like hypocrite or ignorant or irrational. Are you saying it because you need to establish that it’s true, or because you want to swing the weight of that insult? See if from your side: do you want them to change their mind, or do you want them to feel bad about disagreeing with you? And see it from theirs: are they going to understand your meaning, or just take offense?

It’s hard to say where the line is. Sometimes there isn’t one. Most of the time it lies with how you treat the other side of the conversation. It can be the difference between arguing with them because you think their position is wrong, and attacking them because you want to shame them for being wrong. Could you sit down with them afterwards and have a civil conversation about something else? If not, someone may have crossed the line. Maybe it wasn’t you, but the only thing you can really control in the conversation is your side of the table. Even if the problem isn’t your fault, it’s your responsibility.

If you mean to walk away as friends, it’ll be a friendly argument.
If you mean to be the last one standing, it’s going to be a fight.

Unfortunately, there really isn’t a good place to draw that line. We’re all inclined to think that when we get heated it’s because we’re justifiably passionate, and when they do it they’re just being assholes. That distorted perspective doesn’t just make it hard to solve this problem, in a lot of ways it is the problem: not seeing the other side as someone who’s as human, as smart, as decent, and as emotional as you are.

Is he right? The “liar” part is easy. I don’t think that people who disagree with me must have a character flaw. I think that some do, whether it’s because they’re dishonest or unhinged. But that’s a far cry from believing that disagreement is a character flaw. That would be a very difficult thing to believe for someone like me, who’s fascinated by debates and discussions out on the fringe with people whose ideas couldn’t be further from my own. (See, for example, Alfred Adask—I was a guest on his radio show for a friendly conversation, even though I think his ideas are about as wrong as it’s humanly possible to be.)

“Hypocrite” is a lot harder to nail down. I don’t think I’m a hypocrite, but then, how many hypocrites do? I’ve had my share of sharp conversations, especially online, where I lost sight of the human being on the other side of the screen. I’ve insulted people, explicitly and implicitly, for the crime of annoying me. I’m not proud of it, but neither am I alone. And I’m a human being, which means I’ll do it again.

(Hell, I’ll do it right now: This is barbecue. It’s made in TEXAS. I’m very happy to be moving to Kansas, but all those people who keep telling me you’ll still have good barbecue because blah blah Kansas City blah blah—those people are vile and dumb and should feel bad about their stupid opinions. Also, the people whining about the Patriots are sore losers and bad Americans.)

Going back to the climate change conversation, though, I think what the host was getting at was that I was purposefully needling him. And that’s true, I was. He was behaving badly, and rather than letting it rest I kept reminding him of it and trying to shame him with it. I picked at the fact that he was insulting his commenters and berating them for correcting his mistaken use of terminology. My pressure was a kind of criticism of his character. Even if I didn’t say outright that he was being a jerk, my opinion was abundantly clear.

At the end of the day, I can’t say I honestly followed my own rule in that conversation, to remember that Barry Arrington—like everyone I argue with—is as honest and as smart as I am. I may have enjoyed needling him too much, and his aggressive style of insulting rather than engaging made it easy to keep doing it. But neither can I say that I completely forgot the rule. How could I? It’s something I think about constantly, at work and at home where I’m writing a book about these things. At any rate, even if I could remember my state of mind during that conversation, I don’t think I’d trust it. Remember, you’re least objective about yourself, whether you’re giving yourself too much leeway or too little.

That’s going to be true of almost any conversation. It’s not very often that you’ll be able to say for sure, “that guy went too far, he’s objectively mistreating the other side of the debate.” (You’ll have lots of examples of exactly that. But it’s not because that kind of misconduct is common, it’s because it’s memorable.) You don’t need have objective proof of where the line is or who’s crossed it; it’s enough to know that personalizing a conversation is going to kill it for most purposes. What matters is looking back to see what was right, and what was wrong, about that conversation. Not whether the arguments were right, but whether the conversation was right.

In our example, I can’t change how anyone else behaved, and I don’t think anything I said was wrong. But I can see that it was a pretty useless conversation. Everyone walked away pissed off, with no opinions having shifted and no one having any better understanding or opinion of the other side of the table. Even if that wasn’t my fault, doing better is my responsibility. Just like it’s yours.

The best conversations come when both sides of the table see each other as real, live human beings: mostly honest, mostly reasonable, mostly decent, and pretty smart. You’re often going to feel like that isn’t true about the other side, just like they’re often going to feel it about you. You can’t control how they behave, but at the same time no one else is ever responsible for what you do. Don’t forget who you’re talking to.

Moving on

This was Part 1 of our series on The Good Fight. From here, we’ll talk about why we have these conversations in the first place, focusing on the debate with irrational ideologies: anti-vaxers, creationists, etc. We’ll also explore just what it means to be irrational, with a focus on how completely sane, intelligent people can come to hold seemingly bonkers beliefs. After that we’ll start talking tactics, and how to actually be more persuasive when arguing online (or elsewhere).

In the meantime, please do tell us what you think about this first part. It’s a little (a lot) more self-referential than I expected it to be, but it felt hollow to talk about this sort of thing without a little self-examination. If you think I’m off-base, I’d love to hear about it. We won’t call anyone an idiot or a turkey or a liar or a hypocrite.

Probably.

Tagged: anti-vaccine, anti-vax, creationism, debate, denialism, discussion, evolution, intelligent design, negotiation, pseudoscience, science, vaccines]]>http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/29/are-you-arguing-with-yourself/feed/35"Alu finds a friend"kmcrober"Alu finds a friend""Alu discovers her friend is fast"7749142046_259c1527c8_zbantams5138885280_04cd9730e1_b"Alu makes peace"gwvdzbrisketA bit of personal newshttp://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/26/a-bit-of-personal-news/
http://violentmetaphors.com/2015/01/26/a-bit-of-personal-news/#commentsTue, 27 Jan 2015 02:09:33 +0000http://violentmetaphors.com/?p=1551Continue reading →]]>I’m absolutely delighted to announce that I’ve just accepted a position as Assistant Professor-Molecular Genetics of Human Evolution in the Anthropology department at the University of Kansas. KU has a very long tradition of producing top-notch anthropological geneticists, and I’m honored to be joining the department as a teacher and researcher.

“Nothing sells unproven “treatments” like testimonials. For autism it has been true since the days of chelation and even before that. Tell people that your “treatment” cures autism and you have testimonials to show it and you can just about guarantee sales.”

As we all know, anecdotes aren’t scientific evidence, but they do appeal to us on an emotional level. Unfortunately, one woman’s recent experience has starkly illustrated just how untrustworthy such stories actually are.

Camile Saulnier (a pseudonym) was recently given a book by Kerri Rivera called “Healing the Symptoms known as Autism”, which prescribed a “Treatment” for curing autism:

“I began looking into the background of CD/MMS and I was extremely concerned to find that MMS (Sodium Chlorite + Citric Acid = Chlorine Dioxide) aka. ‘CD’ was and is being hailed and marketed as a cure for almost every ailment and disease known to mankind, this includes Cancer, Malaria, Aids and Ebola.

I found the man behind MMS to be one Jim Humble, the Arch-Bishop of a rather cult like church named the “Genesis II Church”. Suffice to say I was very worried indeed, I searched further and found that Kerri Rivera the author of the book “Healing the Symptoms known as Autism” is a Bishop within this church.

I voiced my concerns with my friend who was following the Protocol, but she seemed to be un-phased by my doubts. She directed me to the facebook group CDAutism, where she said I will find proof of the recovery stories and thousands of parents giving testimony to the marvelous gains achieved by using the CD Protocol.”

Saulnier was justifiably concerned and spent some time reading the group’s posts, learning that the linchpin of the group’s claims was the collection of testimonials of parents of “recovered” autistic children. Saulnier was skeptical about the reliability of these testimonials, as they were all posted by Kerri Rivera, and so devised a little test to see how Rivera determined what “recovery” was and whether it was the CD treatment that caused “recovery.”

“I had an idea to see for myself, I needed to be sure 100% that everything I was seeing and reading was real before I could even consider using this protocol. I am afraid my worst fears were not only imagined, they are real.

I made a recovery story for my child, based on so many others which I had read, I felt bad doing it as I do not like to pretend but it was for the sole purpose of finding a greater truth.”

Saulnier’s false testimonial was immediately and enthusiastically posted by Kerri Rivera on the group’s website, and the banner proclaiming the number of children “cured” of autism was promptly updated to reflect this false cure. You can read the details of Saulnier’s correspondance with Rivera here.

Now, I’m not at all comfortable with Saulnier’s approach. I don’t believe that it’s ethical to lie. But having said that, it is a fascinating glimpse into the credulity of this segment of the alt-med community. Can you imagine how this would have played out in the science-based medical community? What level of scrutiny would such a story have been subjected to by physicians and medical researchers before they accepted it as true?

Several readers of this blog are persons on the autism spectrum and have contributed their perspectives in discussions on vaccination and autism. I’d particularly love to hear their thoughts on this issue.

“Vaccines work. Here are the facts” is an awesome cartoon by Maki Naro, refuting the antivaccine arguments and giving a great and accessible overview of why vaccination is important. This deserves to go viral, so please share it with your friends! And while you’re on the treadmill or walking your dog this week, take a listen to “The Most Important Playground Conversation”, a discussion hosted by Voices for Vaccines in which VM writer Colin discusses strategies for discussing vaccination science with other parents.

Science publishing

Retraction Watch just received a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation to develop a database of retracted papers. This database would mean that scientists could check that the literature they rely upon in writing grants and papers haven’t been retracted. And they’re hiring an editor and database developer! This is outstanding news for those of us concerned about improving the quality of scientific publications.

Women in Science

Women have played a meaningful, but largely unrecognized, role in the history of amateur radio. The Mary Sue has a great article honoring female ham radio operators, which I particularly enjoyed because I’m one of their number! To my fellow YLs, 33 from KF5ZMF!! To everyone else, check it out and consider studying for your ham license! It’s not incredibly difficult, and it’s tremendous fun.

Science literacy and skepticism

I really like “Ask for Evidence”, a guide to evaluating the legitimacy of scientific and medical claims. It’s a simple, straightforward and clear explanation, and a good potential teaching tool. Explore the site–there are a bunch of posts by specific topic as well! You might, for example, use these approaches when evaluating claims made by the “Food Babe” who recently revealed some serious shortcomings in her understanding of chemistry.

Research

Did you know that the human milk microbiome has been characterized? That the flora present within human milk differs between mothers who gave birth vaginally and by caesarian? This post gives a really great explanation of this fascinating research.

Sweet Science

Tommy Toehold is hands-down my favorite combat sports cartoon journalist. (If you’re an MMA fan, then you’re probably nodding your head right now). I’m mentioning him in this post because he recently did an awesome video about the women’s MMA show that my sister is the matchmaker for, “How Invicta Took Over The World”. I’m a bit biased, but the latest Invicta show in Houston last week was pretty incredible, and he really gives a great introduction to the show. However, I still think that Tommy’s funniest video of all time is this one of Joe Rogan and Mike Goldberg commentating on the EA UFC game’s glitches. (Warning: language in these videos is safe for neither work nor children.)

Finally, just a reminder that if you want daily links to science stories I find interesting (some of which I included above), “like” the VM page on Facebook!

I usually don’t respond to many comments on my blog, preferring instead to encourage conversation between readers. I also don’t typically close comments on any of my pieces, so conversations and reactions continue for a long time. Sometimes that takes the discussion in an interesting direction. I think that a few recent comments on my “Dear parents…” piece are worth highlighting, as they provide an excellent window into an ongoing discussion of a very common anti-vaccine argument.

Anti-vaccine activists have a problem with medical expertise. They prefer to rely on their own intuition, but it’s hard to measure that gut feeling up against an actual medical degree (much less the experience and knowledge that comes with it). There’s a reason hospitals hire doctors out of medical schools rather than the University of Google.

Anti-vaxxers need to defuse the expertise of real medical practitioners. Simultaneously, they have to grapple with the issue of culpability: if vaccines are harmful, and physicians know about it, they must be acting with deliberate malice to prescribe them to children. But what is their motive? And why would any physician, knowing the dangers, vaccinate his or her own children?

One of the ways the anti-vaxxers maneuver around this problem is by claiming that physicians don’t actually know (or accept) the dangers of vaccines. It’s only those sinister vaccine manufactures and their “shills”, driven solely by profit motives who are fully aware of the dangers (this argument still doesn’t account for why they vaccinate themselves and their children, but anti-vaxxers tend to ignore this problem). According to this line of thinking:

“those people you mention didn’t study the effects on the neurological system, the effects on the kidneys, etc. They’ve only studied a small piece of the puzzle. A very small piece. Ask any primary care physician or family doctor how much time they’ve spent on learning all the ins and outs of vaccines and how they work. It’s a frighteningly small amount of time.”
–A Concerned Mom (extract from comment on November 16, 2014)

To someone who’s actually gone through medical school or graduate school (or knows someone who has), it’s obvious why this is wrong. But if you’re not familiar with the kind of rigorous, even punishing training that physicians receive, it’s harder to see the difference between a serious education and self-study. And for someone who’s emotionally invested in an issue and only has that self-study to justify their position, it’s tempting to put that knowledge on a pedestal and assume it’s as good as, or even better than, traditional schooling and experience. So Concerned Mom’s argument would make a lot of sense, especially to someone who needs to believe that the doctors who disagree with their position somehow don’t know what they’re talking about.

That’s why I was very appreciative of a comment in response to A Concerned Mom, which I highlighted on the Violent Metaphors Facebook page a few days later. (That’s where I post daily, diverse stories about science and science literacy issues. Check it out!). At a reader’s suggestion, I want to highlight it again here, because I think it does an excellent job of responding to this argument, and the question of false equivalency of expertise in general:

” On 11/25/14, A Concerned Mom wrote:“Ask any primary care physician or family doctor how much time they’ve spent on learning all the ins and outs of vaccines and how they work. It’s a frighteningly small amount of time.”

So I thought about that and added up time I spent learning immunology and infectious disease in the First Two Years of medical school. Without even counting the related fields of physiology, the respiratory system, gastroenterology, histology, neurology, etc, I came up with 920 hours of graduate education in immunolgy, microbiology, and infectious disease – and that’s before ever hitting the wards in 3rd and 4th years.

And of course that doesn’t even count the time spent in training by Family Practice, Pediatrics, or Internal Medicine residents.

If we presume that my (rather average) medical school was representative, then most doctors spend ~ 920 hours in graduate education in this field before ever being allowed to sit for the Step I Board Exam and, if we passed it, allowed onto wards and into clinics.

And all of that is miniscule compared to the amount of education involved for biomedical researchers in the field who are the ones figuring out these principles. We doctors need to know how to understand and apply those principles, since we don’t have to derive the background information ourselves. A PhD in the field would have easily spent 70-80 hrs/week in class, labs, and reading, at least 45 weeks per year, for about 4 years.

Is either of those what A Concerned Mom meant by
“a frightenly small amount of time?”

When you say, “They’ve only studied a small piece of the puzzle. A very small piece.” you should expect to be asked how much time was spent studying this topic by the people from whom you are getting your information.

So, I’m asking:
How much time was spent studying these topics by the people from whom you get your information?”–gewisn (from comment posted on 11/27/14, emphasis and paragraph breaks added)

When an antivaxxer tries to defuse this problem of expertise by physicians and medical researchers, I encourage you to show them this post, and ask them the same question.
Many thanks to gewisn, and the other physicians, scientists, parents, and everyone who has contributed so much to the conversations on this blog. You make a big difference.

A professor I know was recently sent a manuscript to review from PLOS ONE. Nothing unusual in that…except that it was his own paper. After briefly debating how to respond, he accepted the invitation to review the paper, and submitted the following review:

Professor:

“This is an excellent paper that I wrote. It is timely, well-executed, and very interesting, and I applaud myself for submitting this. I’d encourage PLoS One to publish this paper. However, I recommend that PLoS One obtain some additional reviews, because given that I am the lead author of this paper that I was invited to review, I am afraid that I cannot give myself an entirely unbiased review of my own work. “

Journal:

“Dear <REDACTED>,

Thank you for taking the time to review PLOS ONE manuscript <REDACTED>. We greatly appreciate your assistance.”

The professor was concerned enough to send them an additional email:

“I have submitted a review, but wish to also indicate directly to you via email, that my review should be discounted. You see, I am lead author on the paper I was asked to review. I submitted the review anyway out of a sense of humor, but would appreciate a timely decision based on someone else’s review, not my own.”

He posted the exchange to his Facebook page. It made its way to Twitter and got spread around a bit. Finally, someone at PLOS took notice:

“Sincere apologies for this error. We’re looking into this and how it occurred & will follow up if we req. info.”

Which was followed a few days later by an email response:

Dear <REDACTED>

Thank you for your email below, which I have passed to <EDITOR’S NAME REDACTED> for attention.

Please do accept our apologies for the error of yourself being invited.

Thank you for your time and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

This is a goofy incident, but it raises a larger issue. We’re all familiar with bogus journals willing to accept any submission without reading it, or those which publish only the journal owner’s own papers. But respectable journals like PLOS ONE are held to a much higher standard. I think it’s fair to call them to task when they screw up (and to be fair, their response was appropriate, if lacking in humor). I’m curious how common this particular problem is. Scientists, have you ever been sent your own manuscript to review? How did you handle it? What was the journal’s response?